tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post6717551476583564487..comments2023-04-12T06:13:37.685-07:00Comments on Imperfect Reflections–1C13:12: "Perhaps your religion doesn't allow you to accept that..."Mackenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-67473888437289428002011-10-22T21:45:18.099-07:002011-10-22T21:45:18.099-07:00I do not think it changes anything. We just have t...I do not think it changes anything. We just have to ask where he derives his morality from. <br />The universe? How can a universe that's merely one enormous accident produce true morality? <br />Mankind? Still merely one accident in a series of accidents. Purely a product of chance. <br /><br />True meaning cannot be derived from chance. To an atheist, there can be nothing but chance. Only random events in an uncaring cosmos.Mackenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-407538260899948148.post-43712120884438031432011-10-22T21:03:19.160-07:002011-10-22T21:03:19.160-07:00So what exactly does this prove? This is a common ...So what exactly does this prove? This is a common argument against empirical morality (a morality derived from simply 'science'), but it doesn't really argue against philosophical non-religious (or rather, atheistic) moral statements (Kant is a big example).<br /><br />What do we do with Kant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com